The question we’re trying to answer is whether AE proves anything. Beliefs are irrelevant for answering it. Even if we ALL agreed in our belief that everyone should own themselves, that wouldn’t prove one iota of anything beyond what we merely believe. 90%+ of all the humans on this planet believe in some form of a God. Almost everyone believed the Earth was flat centuries ago. These beliefs proved nothing. That’s why they are called beliefs, to begin with.
Z.
Okay Z, I find your ‘opinions’ and evasiveness tedious. Besides since you are not trying to prove anything but simply stating opinions, there’s nothing to discuss.
Dodging? Do you or do you not agree with Z that beliefs are not proof?
To each their own. Travel well. I couldn’t see how your line of inquiry was going to move the discussion forward, anyway.
Amidst all the diversionary tactics my refutation of AE’s “proof” remains unanswered (or un-“dispatched”). And that’s not an opinion, but a fact.
Z.
I don’t feel I’m derailing here. If your contention is that AE does not tell us who should own us, then I think asking you for what method there is to determine that is valid. Believing the earth is flat is a perfectly sensible belief, it looks flat, but you are correct that they were incorrect. And how did they determine that there beliefs were incorrect, which is what I’m contending is of utmost importance? The scientific method. That explains things that are. We are talking about things that should be. Who should be ones owner. If you want to know how I determine what should or should not be its by consequences mostly.
The consequences of a person owning himself are better than not in the general case. Do you dispute that?
they are not merely beliefs, they are necessary beliefs given that a coherent set of beliefs are demanded by seekers of truth.
if you believe in the possibility of knowledge you must accept various axioms of logic. if you believe in the possibility of communication and you believe in personhood you might have cause to reflect on what such beliefs necessitate. if you discover the these beliefs necessitate things that you dont wish to assent to, then you are faced with an obvious choice.
What it proves is that no ethic contrary to the NAP can be argumentatively justified. sure, that “all” it does. That’s all! That’s enough.
That’s an appeal to preference utilitarianism, which I can get behind, but it is not proof of an objective fact.
I’m curious LS, where do you sit along the spectrum between myself and Z on the narrow topic of ‘rational argumentation’ vs. ‘charades thereof’ ?
If who should be the owner is in the realm of objective fact, then the scientific method would suffice. Some natural fact about reality or humans would make it clear that the person who controls the body right at birth should remain the controller.
That is not my contention. My contention is that it doesn’t PROVE anything.
Sure we could discuss what method is best (and according to what standard), but that WOULD derail the discussion from the search for AE’s “proof”.
Non sequitur. Let’s conclude that AE proves NOTHING so we can discuss methods for optimal resource allocation and standards thereof in some other thread.
Z.
Lofty stuff. The above is no different from (actually eerily reminiscent of) something a medieval monk would have written – elevating the (necessary!) belief in God as a precondition to discerning the truth. Are you trying to build a cult or a science?
Z.
Nir, I am sure you are offering excellent arguments, even if I don’t always agree with your premises, but there is so much fur flying that I can’t follow it all.
So to be honest, I have no idea what the discussion is between you and Z. I think Z just zinged Wilderness pretty good (no offense wilderness), and I am having a hard time accepting Stephan’s assertions that the NAP is proven by argumentation ethics to be the only consistent ethical theory, because the NAP is not based in objective fact but subjective preference. I can’t place my finger on it, but I suspect the proof is circular and I have some sympathy for Z’s position.
So far neither Kinsella nor any of the links he has posted address the central issue: that AE implicitly defines “argumentation,” “justification,” and “objection” in such a way as to make the proof circular (at best). This is just a more sophisticated form of begging the question. Some of the links do address the issue of question begging in general, but in particular, none of them address the fact that AE defines these concepts so as to rule out merely “subjective” (or any other non-objective) argumentation, justification, and objection, implicitly pointing to some kind of objective conception of ethical norms.
Hence AE appears to be devoid of significant content to anyone who does not accept the notion that ethics can be objective. Kinsella in turn responds by tacitly implying that those who don’t accept objective ethics are “criminals” (or else this is a strawman against z1235) as I point out in this post, which has been conspicuous in that it still lacks a reply from Kinsella even though he immediately pounced on subsequent low-hanging fruit.
I think it’s important to note that both Hoppe and Kinsella at several points make clear that they are aware of this issue:
It’s clear that here Hoppe does not mean “a subjective ethical system” or “only an ethical system for deciding your personal values.” Hence Hoppe seems to understand that his real audience is those who already accept objective ethics as a meaningful and valid concept. Logically, his audience would have to already accept that something can be right and wrong for all people, without reference to any notion of “right/wrong for a specific purpose.”
Likewise, as detailed here and noted again in his post immediately above, Kinsella has claimed:
Even presuming that AE has no flaws, it is still clear that here “argumentatively justified” must refer to argumentative justification defined within the context of objective ethics - as Hoppe himself seems to admit above. (These statements would make no sense, or at least say nothing interesting or novel, within a subjective ethical context.)
Of course, it wouldn’t really undermine the objective ethical position if they had to point out that their arguments have nothing to say to those who don’t accept the notion that ethics can be objective. After all, there are surely many who believe ethics are objective but don’t have a strong logical argument to reinforce what they believe. Here Hoppe and Kinsella may be relevant, but Kinsella - at least - seems quite unsatisfied with this.
Like it or not, arguing in circles within the objective ethical context can never prove objective ethics itself. If that is the aim - which Kinsella’s apparent reluctance to admit the above point seems to indicate - then might it not be better to attempt a direct proof that ethics can be objective? Rather than merely assuming it and plowing ahead anyway?
Original post here. I quoted your word in captialization below too in order to be accurate.
You don’t explain yourself very well. Previously you said “EVERYTHING” can be denied because everything is used to deny itself. I am currently using a computer and not a microwave so I am denying the microwave and NOT USING it.
BUT now you are talking about words. You NEVER brought up words - you said quote “EVERYTHING”. Everything includes non-words too. Next time clarify yourself.
Yes. You said quote: “EVERYTHING”. And now you are changing the goal posts and talking about “words”. Nearly worlds of a difference.
I showed how you are inconsistent in what you are talking about above. I’ll ask. Are you only talking about words and NOT “EVERYTHING” (your capitalization not mine)?
You should have stuck with your original assertion, because you didn’t “follow it all”. “EVERYTHING” is very distinct from “words” or do not see that distinction?
well, you hastly deny whole paragraphs of mine in a fell swoop. do me the courtesy of denying my particular propositions …
do you deny the very possibility of necessary beliefs? is there no such thing in any context?
or do your denials begin further down the path?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
LS,
too true. so next time before you stick your foot in your mouth, please ask.
Come now. Have some honesty. You are attacking natural rights. What is is that you support ?